Could the railways be renationalised under Labour and what should happen in the meantime?

[mike57]

Isn't that what the DfT are working towards with the changes it is making on LNER and in the South East?

May be but as soon as you change on to another operator (even a directly operated one) fares structure changes and this really screws thing up.

A good example: We visit relatives in Peterborough 3 or 4 times a year for the day, and travel by train. So Northern Bempton - Doncaster, and LNER Doncaster - Peterborough.

Ideally we get 2 x 2 (there are two of us) advance singles for the complete journey, with a railcard these will usually cost just short of £100 for the two of us return. However this relies on advance singles being available for both legs of the journey.

If there are no advances on one bit then journey planner defaults to offering off peak singles for the whole journey, bringing the total with rail card to well over £200. This is because LNER dont offer return fares. However for the Bempton - Doncaster leg Off Peak Day returns are available for £41.50 for 2 people with a railcard, which are only 40p more than the off peak single, so by splitting tickets I save around £40. Because of the different ticket structure sfrom the two (both directly operated...) operators the fares offered by the booking engine are not competetive.

If someone isn't familiar with the fares system they are going to be confronted with the over £200 return fare even with a railcard and will probably consider other alternatives.

In an ideal world the fare offered by the booking engines should be the cheapest possible for the journey in question, but the current system fails, and the fragmented nature of the railways must make this worse. If there are going to be changes and simplifications they need to be national, and they should not be used as a backdoor way to put fares up. Until we have a transport minister who is pro railway I dont hold out much hope.

 

[yorksrob]

I dont see how open access can counter that, as I am sure they too would be happy to move to a similar structure, given the frequency at which they run. They might be willing to offer a lower anytime fare than the interavailable one, but that would be about it.

It's a political decision, in the same way that it is a political decision that the privatised railway has been pushed down this route.

Unfortunately no form of ownership will completely shield the railway from bad policy. Some might be better than others at day to day management.

 

[A0wen]

In an ideal world the fare offered by the booking engines should be the cheapest possible for the journey in question, but the current system fails, and the fragmented nature of the railways must make this worse. If there are going to be changes and simplifications they need to be national, and they should not be used as a backdoor way to put fares up. Until we have a transport minister who is pro railway I dont hold out much hope.

I don't think that's a fair comment - if you go on most of the websites they have the various cost options, with the exception of ticketsplits, but then again there are sites which will do that as well.

The problem is people buy the cheapest and then seem to fail to understand when the ticket say's "x operator only" or "x train only" it really does mean that, not that you can turn up 20 minutes late and board the next train. Surprising because people know if you book an airline ticket which stipulates which carrier and the time of the flight, that's what you have to board, not the next flight with a different carrier.

 

[eldomtom2]

To answer the question posed in the title, it seems Labour still plans renationalisation:

Labour to renationalise train operators with no compensation

Shadow transport secretary says Britain’s railways are ‘broken’ and party’s plan to fix them will ‘bring significant savings’

www.telegraph.co.uk

Labour will push ahead with the renationalisation of train operators, Louise Haigh, the shadow transport secretary, said on Wednesday.

She said the party plans to bring the railways into public ownership as private contracts expire, meaning operators would be in public ownership within five years. Because of the contracts expiring, the companies would not receive compensation.

Ms Haigh’s comments came as Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, prepared to launch a major drive to woo business.

In a speech to business leaders on Thursday, he will pledge to make them his “equal partner” in government, saying they deserve praise for “serving the national interest” and stressing that Labour is now the “party of business”.

Ms Haigh told GB News that Britain’s railways were “broken” and that Labour’s plan to fix them would “bring significant savings”.

She said: “I’ll be setting out our plans, actually in just two or three weeks’ time, which will demonstrate how we’ll save money and how that money will bring those operators into public ownership, all of them, within the first term of a Labour government.

“There’s absolutely no compensation provided to the operators.”

 

[HamworthyGoods]

To answer the question posed in the title, it seems Labour still plans renationalisation:

Labour to renationalise train operators with no compensation

Shadow transport secretary says Britain’s railways are ‘broken’ and party’s plan to fix them will ‘bring significant savings’

www.telegraph.co.uk

You do wonder how it will actually save money by just moving the TOCs from private operators to DfT businesses in house.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You do wonder how it will actually save money by just moving the TOCs from private operators to DfT businesses in house.

Once done you can potentially save by consolidating things like back office functions.

 

[yorksrob]

To answer the question posed in the title, it seems Labour still plans renationalisation:

Labour to renationalise train operators with no compensation

Shadow transport secretary says Britain’s railways are ‘broken’ and party’s plan to fix them will ‘bring significant savings’

www.telegraph.co.uk

I do find it strange that this is being reported that the TOC's aren't being compensated.

Companies wouldn't generally be compensated when a franchise or contract expires !

 

[Railsigns]

You do wonder how it will actually save money by just moving the TOCs from private operators to DfT businesses in house.

The public sector doesn't have shareholders hoovering up a slice of the railway's limited funds.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Once done you can potentially save by consolidating things like back office functions.

But law requires a lot Infrastructure and Operations to be kept separate to ensure a level playing field for competition. So a lot of back office functions cannot be merged.

I’m talking about competing freight companies and the growing number of open access operators that on paper Labour’s plan doesn’t propose to renationalise.

The public sector doesn't have shareholders hoovering up a slice of the railway's limited funds.

Horses for courses, Public Sector NR still contracts an awful lot of work out to private companies who still hoover that up.

 

[YorkRailFan]

You do wonder how it will actually save money by just moving the TOCs from private operators to DfT businesses in house.

The DFT doesn't have to award contracts, hence saving money and it allows for rolling stock to be more easily transfered between regions, DFT also doesn't need to bail out TOCs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But law requires a lot Infrastructure and Operations to be kept separate to ensure a level playing field for competition. So a lot of back office functions cannot be merged.

I’m talking about competing freight companies and the growing number of open access operators that on paper Labour’s plan doesn’t propose to renationalise.

It requires Network Rail to be separately accounted, but it doesn't say anything against the idea of for instance merging Avanti, LNER, GWR 80x services and XC into InterCity, which would have one head office, one set of IT systems etc.

Also now we're outside the EU that law can be changed. In any case it doesn't require full separation, just that the accounting is separate so a fair price can be given to any open access operation.

 

[A0wen]

You do wonder how it will actually save money by just moving the TOCs from private operators to DfT businesses in house.

Well quite - especially given DfT's OLR is already operating LNER, South Eastern, TPE and Northern, the Welsh Assembly are operating TfW and Scottish Assembly Scotrail.........

 

[A0wen]

The public sector doesn't have shareholders hoovering up a slice of the railway's limited funds.

It's pretty insignificant - First Group's profit margin (across all it's business) is about 4%, mostly from its bus operations. Rail margins are about 3% - and First is pretty representative.

The biggest costs are staff and infrastructure - so which would you like to cut to reduce costs ?

 

[Railsigns]

Horses for courses, Public Sector NR still contracts an awful lot of work out to private companies who still hoover that up.

Unless you're suggesting that a public sector TOC would contract a private company to operate a significant proportion its services, comparison with NR's business, which involves design and construction, is neither relevant nor helpful.

 

[mike57]

I don't think that's a fair comment - if you go on most of the websites they have the various cost options, with the exception of ticketsplits, but then again there are sites which will do that as well.

My complaint is that by changing LNER ticketing but not aligning connecting operators (or reprogramming booking engines to take account of differences) the default becomes a lot more expensive in some cases, I suspect my case is a fairly exteme one, but its a journey we do a few times a year, and if someone didnt know the ins and out of the fares they would end up paying a lot more, or for a discretionary journey, which ours is, either use a different mode or not travel.

I think the general public understand the advance idea, you travel on a particular train or trains, but the issues of ToC A but not ToC B cause more confusion. As I have said before there should be just 3 types of tickets, Advance, tied to one train, Off Peak, with clearly published time limits and Anytime. I would sweep away all the other fares. If a future government brought passenger operation apart from OA operators under public control then this change could be easily acheived. On the Bempton - Doncaster leg of the journey example in my OP there are 3 types of single tickets and 5 types of return tickets in addition to advance tickets.

 

[Ken H]

Unless you're suggesting that a public sector TOC would contract a private company to operate a significant proportion its services, comparison with NR's business, which involves design and construction, is neither relevant nor helpful.

TOC's outsource security, websites, cleaning etc. They will be a combination of their own employees doing some stuff and contractors doing other stuff.
And things will be bought in. Fuel would be a big one. but office consumables, ticket stock.

 

[dorsetdesiro]

I'm a bit sceptical whatever is said about nationalisation at this stage as an election is coming, all parties are guilty of saying anything to win the keys to No10.

The railways did not get nationalised as a whole under the 1997-2010 Labour government, only bailing out East Coast & pre-Govia Southeastern. Hopefully Labour this time will put their words into action if they do get in.

Unfortunately like with nearly everything, I am taking this with a pinch of salt but of course the railway in its current state really needs sorting out that the next government might find it harder to ignore.

I'm also disappointed that Labour is backing HS2, hope they might change tack and cancel outright. On a positive note, NPR looks more certain than under a Conservative government - hopefully promising for Liverpool, Bradford etc.

 

[A0wen]

Once done you can potentially save by consolidating things like back office functions.

It requires Network Rail to be separately accounted, but it doesn't say anything against the idea of for instance merging Avanti, LNER, GWR 80x services and XC into InterCity, which would have one head office, one set of IT systems etc.

Also now we're outside the EU that law can be changed. In any case it doesn't require full separation, just that the accounting is separate so a fair price can be given to any open access operation.

You'll save penny figures with those things - the reality is they are probably all using similar (if not the same) systems anyway, so all you'd be doing is integrating the instances. You won't save on storage or licensing costs because the storage required will stay the same - and if it's private cloud be it MS, AWS or Google, then the prices are already going to be as cheap as they can be.

It amazes me that people think there are huge savings to be made on these things, when the biggest cost by far to the railways will be salaries - the passenger TOCs alone employ over 60,000 people (data here https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/compendia/toc-key-statistics/ ) - assume those are on average wage which is ~ £ 35k, so the cost of employing will be nearer £ 50k, by the time pension contributions, employer NICs and various other costs are covered, you're looking at a salary bill of £ 3,000,000,000 - yes that's right, £ 3bn in those directly employed by the TOCs, every year.

 

[JamesT]

My complaint is that by changing LNER ticketing but not aligning connecting operators (or reprogramming booking engines to take account of differences) the default becomes a lot more expensive in some cases, I suspect my case is a fairly exteme one, but its a journey we do a few times a year, and if someone didnt know the ins and out of the fares they would end up paying a lot more, or for a discretionary journey, which ours is, either use a different mode or not travel.

I think the general public understand the advance idea, you travel on a particular train or trains, but the issues of ToC A but not ToC B cause more confusion. As I have said before there should be just 3 types of tickets, Advance, tied to one train, Off Peak, with clearly published time limits and Anytime. I would sweep away all the other fares. If a future government brought passenger operation apart from OA operators under public control then this change could be easily acheived. On the Bempton - Doncaster leg of the journey example in my OP there are 3 types of single tickets and 5 types of return tickets in addition to advance tickets.

If you don't have separate operators, how do you encourage people to use slower trains with capacity over crammed faster ones?
The government already has control of ticketing, they could mandate no tickets have operator restrictions if they wanted to without changing the ownership of the operators.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I'm a bit sceptical whatever is said about nationalisation at this stage as an election is coming, all parties are guilty of saying anything to win the keys to No10.

Healthy scepticism is good imho. I too am sceptical as it is an election year.

 

[mike57]

If you don't have separate operators, how do you encourage people to use slower trains with capacity over crammed faster ones?

By making advance tickets on these trains attractive pricewise.

I'm a bit sceptical whatever is said about nationalisation at this stage as an election is coming

And I dont think the railways will figure to any great extent in the campaigns anyway.

 

[JonathanH]

I'm also disappointed that Labour is backing HS2, hope they might change tack and cancel outright.

Are you suggesting they should cancel Phase 1 of HS2 in the middle of its construction?

 

[dorsetdesiro]

Are you suggesting they should cancel Phase 1 of HS2 in the middle of its construction?

Convert the soon to be built Phase 1 part as a conventional non-high speed mainline alternative to the WCML by relieving some congestion at New St by having some Euston-Bham services terminating at Curzon St and run existing stock like 390s also order new cheaper 80xs without the need for new prohibitively expensive stock that will only be used as a "luxury"?

Also downgrade Old Oak Common to be similiar to Stratford Intl/Clapham Jct. Euston should get a less costly makeover along the lines of London Bridge & New St.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

also order new cheaper 80xs without the need for new prohibitively expensive stock that will only be used as a "luxury"?

Cancelling a contracted order for rolling stock and so paying out huge amounts of compensation and then ordering another new train is unlikely to be cheaper than sticking with the original order.

You'll save penny figures with those things - the reality is they are probably all using similar (if not the same) systems anyway, so all you'd be doing is integrating the instances. You won't save on storage or licensing costs because the storage required will stay the same - and if it's private cloud be it MS, AWS or Google, then the prices are already going to be as cheap as they can be.

Indeed and because some of our existing train operator owning groups are global you may find they have better buying power and discounts than the UK government.

one set of IT systems etc.

Which generally increases price as the supplier gains a monopoly.

A current example being Worldline (which is son of ATOS, son of BR RTC).
For a long time a monopoly supplier they charged eye watering prices. Different operators going after different systems has finally started to lower prices!!

 

[YorkRailFan]

I wouldn't be surprised if we see some kind of London Buses or Bee Network "nationalisation", where we have one brand (say GBR) but the existing TOCs continue to operate the services they do under the one brand.

 

[317 forever]

I notice the contrast in which we have the Labour party proposing to take the TOCs in-house, Labour in Wales having already nationalised TfW Rail but TfL, controlled by a Labour Mayor, having put CrossRail / Elizabeth Line services out to retender.

 

[eldomtom2]

I notice the contrast in which we have the Labour party proposing to take the TOCs in-house, Labour in Wales having already nationalised TfW Rail but TfL, controlled by a Labour Mayor, having put CrossRail / Elizabeth Line services out to retender.

I thought they had to tender for the Elizabeth line.

 

[YorkRailFan]

I thought they had to tender for the Elizabeth line.

Yep, same as LO as both are National Rail so have to be tendered out.

 

[kilosandlitres]

According to http://www.railwaycodes.org.uk/operators/franchises3.shtm Children railway’s contract will run out in March 2025, but there is an option for DFT to extend to 2027. Has anyone seen any clarity on whether TOCs would come under state control at the end of their initial term or is at the end of their extended contract?

March 2025 would possible be only 4 months after the election!

 

[Clarence Yard]

The way an NRC is written, after the Core Term Expiry Date the contract can be terminated at three periods notice right up to the final Expiry Date.

So, the decision can be taken at any time to take effect at or between those two dates.